Civilian deaths demand we rethink secret drone wars

This little girl witnessed her grandmother being killed by a drone strike in Pakistan.

Amnesty International Australia

Civilian deaths as a result of drone strikes highlight the serious limitations of sending robots to fight a war, writes Michael Hayworth.

When two packed passenger planes slammed into the tallest buildings in New York on September 11 the world changed. A 'coalition of the willing' was formed, a 'war on terror' started, and Australian troops hit the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the 12 years that have now passed, Australians urgently need to talk about what the war on terror has become and the role of the 'robots', or drones, that now fight substantial parts of it.

Drones are unmanned aircraft deployed by the US to strike targets in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. They are piloted remotely and strike against alleged al-Qaeda operatives.

On the face of it drone strikes are hard to object to: a terrorist is identified, targeted and a remotely controlled aircraft drops a bomb.

The terrorist is killed without any risk to American life. But it is when we start to dig deeper that we find the horrifying reality of the strikes.

Mamana Bibi, a 68-year-old Pakistani grandmother, was killed instantly by two hellfire missiles while she was gathering food in October 2012.

Her grandchildren ran to the scene to find her blown to pieces. They were forced to flee immediately after seeing her scattered body as a second strike was launched and landed only metres away.

Civilians in Waziristan province, Pakistan, report living in constant fear of strikes. Some have shelters in their homes. This matters little because there is no warning for civilians before a drone attacks.

Shockingly the US refuses to disclose any information about the strike that killed Mamana Bibi, or any information about the nature or extent of the US's targeted killing program.

Many would argue that Mamana Bibi could have just as easily been killed by mortar or artillery fire, and this is true. Waziristan is a dangerous place. But she wasn't killed by any of these; she was killed by a US drone in the name of 'the war on terror'.

No government should be allowed to arbitrarily kill a person, particularly a person that they cannot conclusively identify by name.

The US has failed to be transparent about the nature of its drone program and the number of innocent civilians like Mamana who have been killed or maimed as a result, keeping almost all aspects of the program secret.

Scrutiny over this secret program doesn't just rest with the US. There have been media reports that operations in Central Australia's Pine Gap military base have contributed intelligence to the drone program and helped identify drone targets.

No-one is arguing that terrorism isn't a problem, least of all those civilians in Pakistan, Somalia or Yemen who are affected by that insidious form of warfare. We do need to discuss how drones are being used, who they are actually targeted and why the US feels it can launch a strike against anyone, anywhere.

There are many arguments about whether drones are legal or illegal, and which set of rules apply to each strike. We won't go through that here because regardless of which set of rules apply the consequences for civilians are much the same: death, destruction and terror.

When you drill down into detail of the civilian impact of drone strikes and listen to the horror of their aftermath, and the reverberations of tragic deaths like Mamana's, it becomes increasingly obvious the US must be held accountable for these unlawful killings.

Countries like Australia, Germany and others who might be cooperating need to stop any support for a program that so clearly breaches human rights standards.

The method of targeting known as signature strikes is the most controversial aspect of the targeted killings program.

This allows the US to attack without knowledge of who they are attacking. Drones are sent to strike on the basis that the person they are attacking meets a certain 'signature' or pattern of behaviour.

Locals in Waziristan have little choice about the presence of military and Taliban fighters. They live in fear that they may be targeted by drones simply for living in the wrong neighbourhood.

As one resident put it: "There is no difference in the dress; Taliban have long beard and we have beard as well but a bit proper and cleaner than them".

As part of these 'signature' strikes, civilians who have come to the scene of an initial drone strike have often been targeted in follow up attacks, possibly on the assumption that they are members of the group being targeted. Even more devastating - on 6 July 2012 a drone appeared to begin deliberately attacking rescuers after an initial attack in Zowi Sidgi. Six people who ran to the aid of others were killed.

Sound like judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one?

The argument the program is necessary to stop terrorism doesn't wash when those who run it are shielded from public scrutiny and fail to apply even the most basic of standards of justice.

No government should be allowed to arbitrarily kill a person, particularly a person that they cannot conclusively identify by name. And no government should be allowed to hide it.

Amnesty International's latest report Will I be next?is the latest and most detailed study of drone strikes in Pakistan.

As a member of 'the coalition of the willing' Australians need to ask if and how we are involved in this program of unlawful killings and whether we're comfortable with a key ally using flying robots to kill alleged terrorists without so much as an acknowledgement that it ever happened.